Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Infinite Monkeys versus Infinite Universes

Last time, I wrote about the Infinite Monkey Theorem, i.e., the thought-experiment that posits that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards for an infinite period of time would ultimately be able to write all of the books in the Library of Congress. I used basic probability mathematics to determine the likelihood that ten billion monkeys typing for three hundred million years would be able to write just the first two clauses of the beginning of Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities. As shown in the post entitled, "Infinite Monkeys, Keyboards and Time - What are the Odds?" even with ten billion monkeys each typing 52 letters, spaces and punctuation every minute of every day for 300 million years, the odds of those monkeys randomly typing those two lines calculated to one time in every 2.98*1077 years (that's once in every 298 million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million years - and I might have lost track while counting out millions). Needless to say, the odds of the monkeys typing anything resembling those first two clauses of the first sentence (let alone an entire novel) in that period of time is so infinitesimally small that it is more likely that you will win the Powerball lottery (with its 175,000,000:1 odds) several million times in a row. (If you do beat those odds, I expect you to buy everyone in the U.S. lunch because you will own the country.)

So, what does this have to do with Christianity? Well, a lot, actually.

Several statistical issues arise when discussing Christianity and atheism (or its less robust but more cautious twin, agnosticism). One place where statistically impossible odds arise is when discussing the idea that the universe (and especially the Earth) just happened to have the conditions needed to be hospitable for life.

It is simply not true that it is likely that a universe hospitable to life would randomly leap into existence on its own. There are many, many factors that need to be finely balanced for life to have arisen on Earth. Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe has recorded 93 factors that needed to be in place for life to arise on Earth (together with the sources for identifying each of these factors) on the Reasons to Believe blog in an article entitled "Fine Tuning for Life in the Universe." The odds of all of these factors coming into being randomly (recall that if the Universe leapt into existence randomly, none of our physical laws had to be what they presently are) is so small that it is much more likely that the monkeys will type the entire book, A Tale of Two Cities.

As physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg told me on "Closer to Truth" (the source of all following interviews), "The word 'universe,' I suppose, should properly mean the whole thing — everything. But when we think of 'universe,' we sometimes use the word to mean just our Big Bang, the things we can see out to almost 14 billion light-years in all directions. And in this manner, it's reasonable to question: Is our universe unique? Are there multiple Big Bangs? Could there be multiple Big Bangs in different senses?"

"We started calling it a 'multiverse,'" meaning the entire ensemble of innumerable regions of disconnected space-time, said Andrei Linde, the Russian-American physicist now at Stanford. He developed the theory of "eternal chaotic inflation," which generates ever-increasing numbers of universes without end. Scientists created the neologism "multiverse," Linde continued, "because we found that what we had called 'the universe' can be divided into extremely large regions, which may have different laws of physics. And one part may be suitable for life, and other parts unsuitable."

Linde portrays "universes" as painted balloons or bubbles on canvas, "squeezing off" from one another via eternal chaotic inflation. Each of his bubbles is a separate universe, each with different laws of physics. The whole collection of universes, the multiverse, is incomprehensibly vast — and growing ever more so.

Now, the multiverse has been used as an answer to the "anthropic principle", i.e, the unmistakable impression that the universe that we live in is especially suited for life - essentially, the same idea that Hugh Ross raises in his article above. Take, for example, the following from Discover Magazine's article, "Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Designer: The Multiverse Theory":

Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

Now, scientists have refined the Multiverse Theory since the Discovery Magazine article was published in 2008, but there is no question that it remains primarily used in common parlance as a basis for rejecting the idea of special creation by an intelligent designer. But does it really work? Isn't this really just a re-visitation of the Infinite Monkey Theorem?

Consider: the idea of the Multiverse Theory begins with the idea that infinite universes have come into existence, and we are just one of the many iterations that bubbled out of the pool. Now, as demonstrated by the Space.com article mentioned above, the multiverse is thought to create an infinite number of universes. But how is this really any different than the Infinite Monkey Theorem? Rather than having an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards for an infinite amount of time ultimately typing a novel (which is not possible if the numbers are actually less than infinte), we now have an infinite number of universes bubbling out of a infinitely large cosmic pool for an infinite period of time ultimately creating a universe capable of creating and supporting life. It appears that all we have done is substitute monkeys with universes.

When I looked at the Infinite Monkey Theorem, I noted that nothing in this universe that we inhabit is infinite because everything in this universe is necessarily of finite size and finite age. As I pointed out, having the a finite amount of monkeys (even a very large number of monkeys) typing a finite amount of time, the possibility of actually typing the first two clauses of A Tale of Two Cities was so statistically small as to be impossible. What if the phrase "infinite" isn't really an actual infinite (which doesn't exist in this universe) but simply a way of describing a really large number? If that is the case, then it remains as statistically impossible that the large number of factors needed for the creation of a universe capable of supporting life could come together with only a finite number of universes bubbling out over a finite period of time.

Of course, if the multiverse is an actual infinite both in terms of time and in terms of the number of universes produced, then (as I stated previously) the math means anything is possible (in fact, it is mathematically certain). But that leads to the question: what reason do we have to believe that the multiverse (it if exists at all) is actually infinite in size or that it has existed for an actual infinite amount of time? To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to believe that the multiverse is actually infinitely old or infinitely large -- other than it gives a mathematically valid justification for the existence of our universe. But that would be arriving at a conclusion just to justify the non-existence of an intelligent designer. But positing the facts to be exactly what is needed to solve the Anthropic Principle problem is ... well, the results of intelligent design.

The multiverse seems to fail for the same reason that the monkeys fail, i.e., the multiverse theory should require an infinite number of universes being produced over an infinite period of time to create a universe suited to support life, but there is no evidence that the multiverse even exists let alone that the multiverse is infinite in either time or size. Maybe someday, an infinite number of scientists experimenting in an infinite number of laboratories for an infinite amount of time will produce evidence that the multiverse is truly infinite, but that will only be the result of intelligence - not chance.

Comments

There is a significant difference between the "infinite monkeys" postulation and the statistical likelihood of a universe that supports life.

You can observe monkeys and precisely calculate a probability for a given outcome within some given time. You might even enhance the odds by training them to make certain key combinations, like capital letters with a frequency that approximates English language. In any case, you can make a calculation that provides a reasonable estimate of the odds.

But you can't do that with physical constants. We have no basis in observation to say that the expected mass of an electron is represented by some particular probability distribution. Or the gravitational constant, or any other number of factors that would be needed for this overall probability calculation.

Anyone who says that a universe like ours has a small probability is talking out of his ass. The truth is that he simply doesn't know that. It could be that no other set of values is even possible. Or that the number of possibilities is much more limited than the ID advocates speculate. We just don't know.

Let's start with the fact that the IMT posits that the monkeys are randomly striking keys, so saying that we can train monkeys to strike more appropriate keys is changing the theorem. My work last time assumes purely random combinations which is what the IMT assumes.

Second, I don't know on what basis you say that we have "no basis in observation to say that the expected mass of an electron is represented by some particular probability distribution." We can see that many of these factors could easily have been other than what they are. Minor changes in weight of charge of electrons would change the entire structure. Why do you think that the likelihood of that happening by chance cannot be determined? Simply because we don't have other universes to compare it to? We don't have infinite monkeys, either.

On your last comment (which is subject to being deleted for profanity), I guess you have a problem with Discover Magazine, too. It makes it very clear that scientists recognize this as a real problem. But I respect people who don't believe something just because others believe it, but you will definitely need to support it more than just asserting that they are "talking out of their ...."

Let's start with the fact that the IMT posits that the monkeys are randomly striking keys, so saying that we can train monkeys to strike more appropriate keys is changing the theorem. My work last time assumes purely random combinations which is what the IMT assumes.- I was raising the issue that the assumption of randomness (uniform probability distribution) might not be the best. Better results would be obtained by actually observing the frequency of hits for each key, and the frequency of combinations. For example, if the monkeys are observed to always strike keys by alternating right and left hands, that would drastically affect the probability distribution for producing certain texts, based on the location of keys on the keyboard.

Second, I don't know on what basis you say that we have "no basis in observation to say that the expected mass of an electron is represented by some particular probability distribution." We can see that many of these factors could easily have been other than what they are.- I disagree. How do you know that they could have been different? When people make these calculations, they just assume that any value is just as likely as another, but nobody knows whether that's true. This is a point made by Victor Stenger. Perhaps all these physical constants are linked together, so that choosing one of them determines all the rest. Perhaps there's only one set of values that could ever exist. There's no physicist that knows. And that's why just assuming random choices is faulty.

Why do you think that the likelihood of that happening by chance cannot be determined? Simply because we don't have other universes to compare it to? We don't have infinite monkeys, either. - As I was saying, we have no idea - based on what we know of THIS universe.

I guess you have a problem with Discover Magazine, too. It makes it very clear that scientists recognize this as a real problem. But I respect people who don't believe something just because others believe it, but you will definitely need to support it more than just asserting that they are "talking out of their ...." - The discover article ignores the major problem that Stenger and other physicists have pointed out.

Ah yes, Stenger's reliance on the "Theory of Everything" which, of course, does not exist (or, at least, has not been discovered). Relying upon a theory that has no identified basis in reality is an interesting tact which I will allow to stand on it's own.

Regardless of your failure to read and understand what Stenger says, the point still stands. There is no valid reason to assume a low probability for the universe having the properties it has, and I haven't heard any justification for it. Nothing but your assertion.

Ah yes, you understand it but I don't. And that would because you are so much smarter than me, right? You post a link which I read and understand, but now what you linked isn't really what he said. I will leave it to others who might bother to read this far to decide who shows more understanding. This thread is done.

Popular posts from this blog

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

John Lennox is a wonderful spokesman for Christianity. In many ways, he is the one Christian apologist who has acquired the mantle of C.S. Lewis in the way that he is able to take points that are sometimes difficult for those unfamiliar with thinking about Christianity and reduces them to simple arguments using metaphors and examples that anyone can understand.

Since it is the Christmas season, I thought it worthwhile to point a video by Dr. Lennox entitled "Christmas for Doubters." In the video, he responds to the idea that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too ignorant to understand how babies were conceived. Rather, by comparing the accounts of the birth of Jesus with the birth of John the Baptist, Dr. Lennox shows that those who wrote the Gospels understood that the authors of the Gospels did have an understanding of where babies come from, but that they understood that the births of both Jesus and John the Baptist were outside of ordin…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

William Lane Craig remains one of the most erudite and knowledgeable of today's Christian philosophers. His book, Reasonable Faith, has remained one of my favorite Apologetics tools because he lays out many of the Christian claims so clearly and cogently that only the most hardened of skeptics dismisses him or his work as being without weight. Certainly, his writings have led many people to turn their hearts toward Jesus.

We are blessed that Dr. Craig maintains a website also called Reasonable Faith with lots of information that can be accessed free of charge to make a case for Christianity. One of the great features of his website includes a question and answer section where Dr. Craig selects questions that have been addressed to him, and he generally provides really good answers that can help inform all Christians' Apologetics efforts. Unfortunately, this blog has not referenced Dr. Craig's work nearly as often as we ought, but I want to focus on one of the questions …

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

“[What] we have today is worse than ignorance of the Bible. It is contempt for it. Just about anyone who quotes the Bible, let alone says it is the source of his or her values, is essentially regarded as a simpleton who is anti-science, anti-intellectual and sexist.” ~ Dennis Prager, Jewish thinker and nationally syndicated talk show host, from I’m Back, Here’s Where I’ve Been.
There is no question that Christianity in the West is under attack from some in the public square. While Christians are still able to worship as they choose and to follow their faith (as long as they do so in private), one would need to be blind to overlook the effort by some to turn the public perception of Christianity as being backwards, ignorant and responsible for hatred. For example, in May 2011 the Huffington Post, the left-leaning Internet website, published an article entitled If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong by Cenk Uygur wherein Uygur expressed what I cannot doubt is the view of…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.